





-- %. 






y^'Vv «: 



^^-^ 
















"t ^-.^■' '■ 













'^^Ao^ 



C" . 







TT*' A 









*" ^^ 



v-*- 



^^ 



'oK 















^' 



v^. 




.0^ . • ^ 



' <i>, ^ O K O ^ 



T* ,0 











3^ cOV. "^C 




-n-o^ 



> ^>. 










..'^" /^ife\ '*^..*^' .''A%i^', 'v./' «■ 



.^^\ 



■^.^*^ .• 



% .... 



*^ 



^9 













-.0 







* -^ 



:;:.'♦ ^ 



"<>. -O"*' /?>' 



.^^ "'^.^ -.^^as^* '5.^ '^ -y^^^.* j^ "^./-j 




V •'• 









^' 










-^aiep^* 






• A 



- ^oV* 

















,-ip^ '^^P'y^J^f' ^Ov. 












*^o< 



»P-n*.. 








.M'*' *'i»5^% '^.^ 



^oV" 



•tf-^ -omO 






xP' ..iJlL'* "^ 



'<^, .'^"*' ^'MM*, '^. ..i- /i 











-o. '.-^r^T^^o' % 




' . . » * A 






•i^ .!^ 



^ 



,^^' ^^ 







'^^^ c3^' 










C" . 










>.^^4^ 




.<bu>, 







-.' .*^^\. \^ 






v^^ , 






im't 
























. t<. ,&^ ^J^%^k^ \ ^cf - 



^ -^s.^^^ 




'^«b- 



.-^^^^^ 







M^ **. 







^^.^^^^ 




^"•^^. - 




/ ,.,^^ 



^-^^^^ 















;." **'%. °o^^.' ./v -• 



SPEECH 



MR. R. JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND, 



V / Tj^p^ REGIMENT BILL. 



f)ELIVERED IN THE SeNATE OF THE UnITED StATES, JaNUAKY 10 AND 11, 1848. 



Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, said : My purpose, Mr. President, in now ad- 
dressing the Senate, is to give my opinion upon certain points connected with 
the present war, which it seems to be conceded may be properly discussed upon 
•the present bill. 
They are these — 

First. Is the war a just and honorable one, or is it unjust and dishonorable. 
Second. Has it been heretofore properly prosecuted. 
Third. How should it hereafter be prosecuted. 

Fourth. What end, consistently with the good name of the nation, should b& 

attained by it. 

^ Mr. President — Upon each of these propositions I propose to present my 

views with the frankness and freedom which become a Senator, and at the same 

, time with the deference which 1 sincerely feel for the opinions of those upon 

both sides of the chamber with whom I shall be found to differ. 

Nothing, sir, is more annoying to me than to refer at any time to any thing 

S personal to myself, and it is especially so, to do it in the presence in which I 

stand. But there may be circumstances which, render it a duty. I feel myself 

in that condition, and I therefore ask the kind indulgence of yourself and the 

Senate to say a word or two of a personal character. 

To those who know me, Mr. President, it is, I am. sure, unnecessary to dis- 
claim that I am actuated on this occasion, neither in what I shall say or do, by 
any other motive than the single motive of duty to my country. If I could be 
mad enough to desire any other political post of honor than the one which I now 
hold (sufficient one would think, to satisfy the cravings of any ambition,) I hope 
I know myself well enough to be able to say with truth, that I should scorn to 
obtain it by pandering to popular passion or official power. But, sir, I am proud 
to state, that I have no such desire — that there is no office in the gift of the pre- 
sent Executive which I would accept, and none in the power of the people to 
give that I would take. In the school of political ethics in which I have been 
• taught, I have imbibed as my first and last lesson, the duty to do what you believe 
to be right, and confidently abide the result. 'trBe it the approbation of 3-our fellow 
men, or not, you have then the approbation of your own conscience, transcend- 
ing, infinitely transcending in true value, any reward that can fiow from human 
;30urce. 

As to popularity, sir, I estimate it as nothing, if it is sought after. Its real 
"worth is when it follows good ends, accomplished i)y good means. It becomes 
disgrace when catered for. 

I would not avow any political opinion, which I did not sincerely entertain, 
nor conceal one vv'hich I did entertain, to win any honor which my countrymen 
could bestow. Honor so won, if I was capable of so winning it, would be to 
me but hourly abasement. 

Sir, I need not say that I came into this body differing with the administration 
upon almost every subject of our public civil policy. This difference, decided 
as it was in the beginning, so far from having been diminished, has been but more 
Towers, printer, comer of D and 7th streets, opposite National Intelli£cncer. 



and more strengthened and confirmed. I believe they misapprehend the true 
policy of the country, and fundamentally err upon great and vital points of con- 
stitutional power. I may be mistaken, but I believe as sincerely as I believe 
in my own existence, that the day will come, and is rapidly coming, when this 
will be seen to be the general opinion of the people, and that until then the 
country will be deprived of many a blessing which the constitution was intend- 
ed to bestow. But, sir, new questions have arisen, and are now agitating the 
nation. We are at war, and upon one of the questions growing out of it, I find 
myself differing perhaps with most of the Senators on this side of the chamber^ 
(not I hope with all,) with whom it is my pride and pleasure generally to agree. 
I need not say, Mr. President, to you or to them, that this difference exists, if it 
does exist, because I am unable from a sense of duty to have it otherwise. 
Party ties, party prepossessions, party associations, strong as they ever are and 
should be, can never be sufficiently strong to make an honorable man violate 
what he feels to be his duty to his country : and when in that duty is iuvolved 
his country's reputation, they should be and are weaker than the spider's web. 
Nor upon this occasion do I feel any other concern than that which the mere- 
fact of difference creates, because I know so well the Senators who are around' 
me, that whatever regret they may feel that our opinions are not upon all points 
identical, I should cease to have, what I am sure I now have, their respect and 
esteem, if I surrendered my own judgment, and paltered with my own conscience 
upon a measure vital in that judgment to the true fame of our common country o. 
We differ, sir, but wo differ as friends. We differ, sir, but we differ as patriots.. 
We have alike the true honor of the country at heart — we are only not agreed' 
perhaps as to what that true honor demands. 

Sir, he libels them, and libels me, who doubts our high and patriotic purposes.. 
He violates the decorum of private life, and the decencies of official relation, 
where it exists, who intimates that we are capable, under any state of things,, 
or for any purposes, of taking sides with the enemies of our country. We aim: 
alike at her honor — we disagree, if we do disagree, as to the true mode of vin- 
dicating and maintaining it. Mr. President, all of the good and liberal of my 
countrymen will, I have no doubt, when they shall have seen what I am about 
to say, do me the justice to believe that my motives are pure and patriotic. There 
may be, and perhaps are, mere followers of the party camp, whose hope it is to 
feed on the spoils of the contest, who may profess to doubt it ; but none such 
do I drop a syllaljle to satisfy. Bred in the corruption of the motto of the politi- 
cal free-booter, that the spoils belong to the victor — fighting not for principle, but 
for plunder, they are as feculant as their motto, and beneath the notice of honest 
men. Only, indeed, to be shunned as you would shun any loathsome toad that 
miffht be in your pathway. I proceed now with the discussion. 
Is the war just and honorable or not ? 

I think it is just and honorable, and I hope for the good name of my country, that 
such will be the judgment of Christendom. Sir, I wish to be understood. I am not in 
this place inquiring into the conduct of the Executive, into its prudence, or its con- 
stitutionality. My single proposition now is, that as between the United States 
and Mexico, the former had just cause of war on the 13th May, 1846, when the 
war act of that date was passed, and that on that day war in fact existed by 
means of the unjust and illegal act of Mexico. Sir, I repeat, before going fur- 
ther that I sincerely trust, as I love the fair fame of my countrymen, that T may 
be able to make this plain. Sir, I should bow in deep and heart-felt mortification 
for that fame if I did not believe it to be plain. I would not have it even to be 
involved in the slightest obscurity or doubt, from the dread of the judgment 
which the civilized world would then be compelled to pass upon us. We live in 
an ao-e when nations, as individuals, lose their power and usefulness, and sink 
into degradation, if they perpetrate acts of wrong and injustice. We arc, thank 
God, surrounded by a moral atmosphere as necessary to healthful national exis- 
tence as the atmosphere we breathe is necessary to individual life. If we dis- 



card it, if we sink below it, if we substitute for it that which is inseparable from 
violence and injustice, the punishment is at hand. Decay begins, and progres- 
ses, until we are involved in hopeless ruin. 

National character, sir, is national power, and the purer, the more elevated, 
the more spotless that character, the greater the power. I trust, therefore, in 
God, that I am right in the opinion that this war is, upon our part, just and hon- 
orable. If not, if not clearly just and honorable, then will we be pronounced 
by the judgment of the world a band of murderers. No other sentence can 
then be passed upon us. If we are right, we are worthy descendants of sires 
who knew no moral blemish, who estimated the national honor above all price. 
If we are wrong, we have disgraced the inheritance of freedom they have left 
us, brought dishonor upon our land, and aimed a fatal blow at constitutional free- 
dom itself 

Mr. President, if I speak strongly, it is because I feel strongly. I wish to give 
offence to none, I take no offence if others hold a different opinion. I am here 
to justify my own before the Senate and the country, and I mean to do it with 
the freedom that belongs to each of us. 

Mr. President, I have an instinctive repugnance to believe my country wrong 
in any war in which she can engage, and I rejoice that in this instance my feel- 
ings and my judgment are one. I now proceed with the attempt to maintain 
that judgment. I have not time, sir, nor health to state all the facts which our 
difficulties with Mexico have developed applicable to this question. Nor if I 
had, should I deem it necessary to trespass so much upon the time of this body. 
My purpose is to refer only to such as I am sure cannot be successfully denied, 
and which are of themselves, in m_v opinion, conclusive of the controversy. 

In 1834, the Mexican Congress passed a decree, requiring all citizens to sur- 
render to the Government their arms. The legislature of Coahuila and Texas, 
by decree, remonstrated against it and against other acts repealing the constitution 
of Mexico of '24, by which they had changed the Government from a Federal to 
a Central one. 

For this General Cos, under the order of Santa Anna, at the head of his ar- 
my, broke up the legislature of Coahuila and Texas, arrested all the officers of 
the Government, marched over the Rio Grande, and established his head-quar- 
ters at San Antonio, leaving a garrison at Lipautitlan on the Nueces, and one at 
Goliad. The Texans then commenced the revolution, and in 1836 retook Go- 
liad, Lipautitlan, and San Antonio. 

The boundaries of Coahuila and Texas, as these departments were laid ofT 
into one State by the constitution of '24, were the Nueces, running for upward of 
one hundred miles up that stream, and then by a line across from that point to 
the Rio Grande. The territory below that line, between the Nueces and the 
Rio Grande, was a part of the State of Tamaulipas. The territory above that 
point on the Rio Grande, was divided between Coahuila and Texas, by the river ; 
that is to say, the Texan boundary, as between herself and Coahuila, established 

'by the constitution of 1824, was the Rio Grande running north-easterly from 
the point where the line I have stated, from the Nueces to the Rio Grande, struck 

' the latter. Tamaulipas granted to various individuals, by what were called colo- 
ny-grants, under which many settlements were made, much of the land be- 

' longing to her situated between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. These 
colonists, or the greater portion of them, so entitled to this portion of the terri- 
tory, joined in the Texas Revolution, and were represented in the convention of 
Texas, which subsequently declared the independence of that Republic, The 
day after the battle of San Jacinto, 31st April, '36, Santa Anna surrendered as 
a prisoner. In about six weeks afterwards he entered into a treaty with the 
Government of Texas, acknowledging the Rio Grande as its southwestern 
boundary, upon condition that General Felisolea, then at the head of five thou, 
sand troops, being all that were left to the centralists to maintain their power, 
should be permitted to retire west of the river, and that he, himself, should be 



released. These conditions were complied with, Felisolea being permitted to 
retire with all of his force to the west of the river, and Santa Anna, in October 
afterwards, being released. The treaty contained, also, various stipulations about 
the release of prisoners and the surrender of property. General Rusk (the hon- 
orable Senator from Texas now before me, and who will pardon me for referring 
to him by name, it being impossible to avoid it because of its inseparaVjle con- 
nection with the short but glorious history of his country's revolution,) then at 
the head of the Texan forces, and under the order of the Texan Government, 
transmitted a copy of the treaty to General Felisolea, who recognized it, and at 
once complied with all the obligations it imposed upon him. 

In 1836, 19th December, the Texan Congress passed a law describing the 
Rio Grande as their southwestern boundary. After this, Felisolea was super- 
seded in command by the appointment of General Urea, who immediately com- 
menced raising an army to re-invade Texas. General Rusk, who was still at 
the head ot the army of Texas, and stationed at the Gaudaloupe, ordered the 
families between that post and the Rio Grande to retire to his rear, or to re- 
move to the western bank of the river. The most of them did retire to his rear, 
but many of the Mexicans elected to cross the river, and settle on the opposite 
side. For the purpose of facilitating the removal of those occupying the coun- 
try and of watching the movements of the Mexican army, and preparatory to an. 
advance upon Matamoras, he dispatched General Felix Houston with a sufficient 
force to take possession of Corpus Christi, and that was done. General Hous- 
ton exercised inore authority, between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, than 
Urea did, who was stationed at Matamoros, with a force of about ten thousand 
men. At one period Urea crossed the river with the greater part of his com- 
mand, and encamped a tew miles east of the river, but in a very short period he 
re-crossed to the \vestern side. In this condition things remained until 1843, 
the Mexicans having no army to the east of the river, and the Texans having a 
few troops at Corpus Christi and San Antonio. With these troops, however, 
the Texans frequently made excursions to Lacido, a place upon the Rio Grande, 
and several times crossed it. The Mexican troops made two incursions, cross- 
ing the river both times, coming as far as San Antonio, and upon each occasion 
were immediately driven back to the west bank. In 1843, also, an armistice 
was ao-reed upon, under which the Mexican army was to remain on the west 
and the Texans on , the east side of the river. This armistice was in the same 
year revoked and the war declared to be renewed. The proclamation of Gene- 
ral Wool, who was then in command of the Mexican force, issued by direction 
of Santa Anna, declared that all Mexicans found within three leagues of the 
river, would be considered as " favoring the usurpers of that territory," (mean- 
ino" by the territory, the whole of Texas,) be tried by court martial, and capitally 
punished. There were, during this period, at a post called Lacido, on the east 
side of the river, some citizens under a military organization, and organized 
simply with a view of defence against the Indians, mustered only upon such oc- 
^ casions, but claiming to be citizens when Hays or McCullough were there with 
Uhe Texan Rangers. From the commencement of the revolution in '34, to the 
independence declared by Texas in '36 — from that period to the admission of 
Texas into our Union in '45 — and from '45 up to the present hour, no Mexican 
document can be tbund, military or civil — no Mexican officer, military or civil — 
has ever been known maintaining that the territory lying between the Nueces 
and the Rio Grande belonged to Mexico hy any other title than that which she 
maintained to the ichole territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande. 
'IJnder the colony contracts granted by Tamaulipas, heretofore referred to, 
the settlers, at an election in Texas in '41 or '42 for members of Congress, voted 
at Corpus Christi, claiming to be citizens of Texas, and their votes were re- 
ceived and recoo-nized by the government. The evidences to the title, too, to the 
lands so settled upon, including all transfers from the time of the revolution of 
•-34, to the present time, are recorded amongst the land records of. Texas. On 



the first of March, '45, the alternative resolutions for the admission of Texas 
into the Union were passed. On the 29th of December, '45, Texas was ad- 
mitted, and on the same day an act was passed to extend the laws of the United 
States over the State of Texas. On the 31st December, '45, Texas was con- 
stituted a revenue district, and the city of Galveston, the only port of entry, hav- 
ing annexed to it, amongst other ports, as ports of delivery," the port of Corpus 
Christi, a port on the west side of the Nueces. Under that act a revenue offi- 
cer of the United States has been appointed for Corpus Christi. On 2d Febru- 
ary, '47, Congress, by an act establishing additional postroads in the State of 
Texas, there were established, amongst others, one from Brasos Santiago via 
Point Isabel to Fort Brown, opposite Matamoros; and one from Corpus Christi to 
Brazos Santiago, a point south of Point Isabel, near the mouth of the Rio Grande. 

Now, as before stated, Texas was annexed under the first of the alternative 
resolutions of the 1st March, '45. 

[The fir=t resolution provides, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included 
within, and rightruKy belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be 
called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of 
said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, 
in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. 

That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the condition that the said State be 
formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise 
With other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption 
by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United 
States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one 
thousand eight hundred and forty-six. 

The second resolution provides, that if the President of the United States shall, in his judgment 
and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the first resolution to the 
Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate 
with that republic, then that a State be formed out of the present republic of Texas, with suita- 
ble extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress until the next apportionment 
of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with 
the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the 
remaining Texan territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the government of Texas 
and the United States ; and the sum of ^100,000 is hereby appropriated to defray the expenses 
or missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by 
treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Con- 
gress, as the President may direct.] 

Immediately upon the annexation the Minister of Mexico, General Almonte, 
demanded his passports, upon the ground that the annexation itself was a state 
of hostility to Mexico, and from that period to the march of General Taylor 
from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, the irequent efforts of the American Go> 
vernment to terminate the controversy by negotiation tailed ; and before that 
march, the Mexican Government were collecting their forces upon the Rio 
Grande, with the avowed design, not of taking possession only of the territory 
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and conceding to the United States 
that portion of Texas which lay west of the Nueces, but of disputing with the 
United States the title to the whole of the country between the Rio Grande and 
the Sabine, and upon the ground that the whole and every jxirt of that territory^ 
was still a portion of Mexico by virtue oj her original and paramotmt title^ 
Now, Mr. President, the proposition which I seek to maintain is this : that as 
between the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico, 
the former had in this condition of things a perfect right, and the same right for 
the purpose of repelling the threatened invasion, to march her troops into the 
territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, as into any territory situated 
between the Sabine and the Nueces. The question is not, whether such a 
movement of the troops was under all the circumstances judicious and prudent ; 
it is not, whether by a different course an actual conflict might not have been 
avoided ; but whether, as a matter of right — as a matter of self-defence, the 
United States (not the President) had not, under the law of nations, full and per- 
fect authority and justification to make such a movement. 

What, sir, are the clear and indisputable facts ? The United States had re- 
ceived the republic of Texas into the Union without antecedently defining hes 



boundaries, and under a constitution Avhich reiterated what had been, as far back 
as '36, a part of her original constitution as an independent republic — that the 
Rio Grande, from its source to its mouth, was her southwestern boundary. The 
United States extended all her laws over the State of Texas, as so admitted. 
They had assumed actual jurisdiction at Corpus Christi. They knew that there 
were citizens between the Nueces and the Rio Grande who claimed to be citi- 
zens of the State of Texas so admitted. They knew that for nine years the 
State of Texas had existed as an independent nation. 

Who proposed withdrawing Taylor on the 13th May ? Who denied then, that 
we had good right to expel the Mexicans and to invade, for the purpose of aveng- 
ing the outrage on our flag, any and every part of Mexico? She had refused to ne- 
gotiate ; she had considered annexation as war ; she had terminated all diplomatic 
relations ; she had refused to receive our Minister upon a mere quibble of the then 
President, because he was afraid of his own power, threatened with downfall 
because it was believed he was willing to negotiate with us at all. She had 
mustered an army on the Rio Grande with the declared object of invading all 
Texas, and recovering the whole to her own sovereignty. Her then Government 
owed its existence to this very determination. She had never maintained any 
peculiar title to Avhat is now called disputed territory. What, in this state, were 
the United States to do ? Were they bound to remain still and wait the invasion, 
or were they not authorized to meet the threatened invasion, even upon the ad- 
mitted territory of the invader ? Who doubts, that with nations as with individu- 
als, the right of self defence gives the right to strike the first blow? To prevent 
an injury is easier than to repair it. Sir, where is the writer on the law of na- 
tions who holds a different opinion ! There are some propositions so plain 
that they admit of no illustration; they furnish their own best illustration, and 
this is one of them. We had a clear, undeniable right to meet Mexico at the 
very outermost limits of Texas, and repel her there ; or ifwe deemed it advisable, 
an equally clear and undeniable right to anticipate her by striking the first blow 
on her own admitted territory. But it is said that the place of conflict was 
on Mexican territory. If it was, the argument in our behalf would not be in the 
least enfeebled. She was there intending to go further. She was there to drive 
our army back to the Sabine. She was there to reconquer Texas, the whole 
and every part of Texas, and not to retain a portion only, upon the ground that 
such portion was not Texas. 

But even the fact is not as alleged. Whether this portion of the territory was 
or was not rightfully a part of Texas was, at least, a matter of dispute. Texas 
claimed it; Texas, over a portion of it, exercised jurisdiction. Citizens resid- 
ing on it, claimed to be citizens of that government. Mexico had in vain at- 
tempted to recover it. The constitution of Texas included it. The United 
States had exercised, after the admission of Texas into the Union, sovereignty 
over part of it — the highest act of sovereignty, the taxing power. She had re- 
ceived Texas into the Union without any other definition of boundary, reserving 
the right only as between themselves, Texas, and any other power who might 
question the justice of the boundary, to settle it by negotiation. Without a breach 
of honor to Texas, the United States could no more have surrendei'ed, without 
inquiry and negotiation, to an absolute and armed demand, this portion of the 
territory, than they could have surrendered to such a demand the entire Slate. 

All then that can be said is, that the title of Texas to this part of her territory 
was open to dispute. Such a dispute is to be settled by two means — by negotia- 
tion or by force. If the negotiation was refused, if Mexico elected the other al- 
ternative, force, can she complain if we met her Avith force ? But suppose her 
design was not actual force, but to get possession only of the disputed ground. 
Had not the United States the same right to take possession, and hold whatever 
they possessed, until the question of title was decided by negotiation ? The very 
question of title might have been afl^ected by the fact of possession. Mexico 
might have relied upon it as conclusive of the inability of Texag^ and the United 



States as their successors, to prevent it, and as demonstrating that her original 
sovereignty had not been lost by the revolution. This the United States had a 
right to guard against ; their own honor bade .them guard against it. If actual 
possession, by Mexico, could weaken the title of Texas, it was their duty to 
strengthen it by also taking possession. Pending a question of disputed territo- 
ry, not actually possessed by cither, who ever contended that it was the duty of 
one of the parties to suffer the other to take possession, ^nd then try the title. 
No, sir, no lawyer would give such advice. No statesman would so act. Things 
should, in such a case, be suffered to remain in ^^ statu quo.'' Neither should 
seek to get advantage of the other. If I am right in this, and Mexico designed 
taking possession, then she cannot complain if we also took possession ; and es- 
pecially not, if she knew that, notwithstanding such possession, we were willing 
at any time to neg(jtiate on the question of title. 

Sir, it has been said, that to march into the disputed territory is an act of hos- 
tility. I concede it. But then to threaten to march — to prepare to march — to 
muster an army to march, and with the avowed purpose of taking forcible posses- 
sion and holding, is also an act of hostility. This Mexico did tirst, and we had 
then a clear riglit to anticipate her, upon every principle of the national law, by 
inarching ourselves, and placing ourselves in a condition successfully to meet 
and repel her. Between nations, as between individuals, aggression may be 
met by aggression — assault may be met by battery. But it is said revolution 
gives no title unaccompanied by actual and undisturbed possession and jurisdic- 
tion. As a general principle, the proposition is true ; but what is actual and 
undisturbed possession ? Does it mean that the revolutionary government is to 
have a soldier on each foot of her asserted domain ? Does it mean that every 
inhabitant within her territory is to acknowledge and submit to her sovereignty ? 
or does it not only mean, that such government is to have possession, claiming 
exclusive title to the whole of her asserted bounds, and to possess the power and 
determination to make that title good by force, against the original sovereignty? 
I say it means this, and nothing more. 

See the result of a different doctrine. We declared our independence in '76 ; 
the war continued seven years. Suppose no treaty of peace had been made re- 
cognizing our limits, but England had simply retired from the contest in disgust 
with the struggle, as she might well have done, would not our title at that mo- 
ment have been as good to every foot of our glorious Thirteen, as it was to the 
very battle-fields of Saratoga and Yorktown. And yet, how inconsiderable 
a part of our country was ever trodden by the American soldier or within 
actual reach of his arm. And yet, how many hearts throughout the contest 
beat high with true loyalty to England, and were striking, or were burning 
to strike, for her standard. No, sir, the proposition is not true as it is some- 
times understood. It means only the ability to make the usurpation good 
by force of arms, when the usurper's title is by force of arms assailed. Subject 
to this test, who can doubt that Texas had the ability to maintain her title to any 
part of the territory claimed by her between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ? 
Let the facts give the answer. After her declaration of independence, and after 
she had by force driven the Mexican troops across the latter river, they after- 
wards returned but twice, and were each time driven back ; and from the period 
of the last incursion, in 1843, no Mexican soldier ever crossed the rivei", and no 
civil ofiicer of Mexico ever exercised jurisdiction over that portion of it to which 
our troops were marched. Texas then claimed the territory — Texas drove 
Mexico fi-om it — Texas had apparently the power, and certainly the will, to drive 
her from it whenever she invaded it. If these were the facts, and I appeal to 
the honorable Senator from Texas [or their truth, what doubt is there, that to 
that part of her constitutional limits she has a perfect title. Sir, a word or two 
more, and upon this point I have done. What Senator, what American, would 
now be content to abandon the territory in question, make the Nueces the boun- 
dary, and fight only for that boundary ? For peace, to put an end to the war, to 



8 

spare the further effusion of blood, some might be found, M'ho would, by negotia- 
tion, agree to that limit, if Mexico would sui render all title to the rest of Texas, 
But who is there who would now propose to fall back to the Nueces, and abandon 
at once the intermediate territory, the very fields of Palo Alto and Resaca de la 
Palma to Mexico, and fight her ®nly on the banks of the Nueces? I believe, I 
hope, for the honor of a common allegiance, that there is not one. I have said 
that I trusted for the sake of our heretofore stainless character, that the opinion 
I have thus feebly endeavored to maintain was correct — that the war is, on our 
part, a just one. 

Knot, sir, why is it not? It is because, without justification, we invaded Mex- 
ican soil. It is because, without justification, we caused Mexican blood to be 
spilled upon Mexican ground. It is because they were met at their own homes, 
which we invaded; upon their own fields, dear to them, as love of country is 
(Jear — consecrated to them by all the associations which bind man to the soil of 
his birth, in the holiest of all duties — the defence of home and country ; and 
have, without right, without excuse, without palliation, given them to the sword — 
slaughtered them by hundreds and thousands, and driven the survivors away. 
Sir, would not such a tale of wrong, of itself, cover our country with ignominy? 
But it is not yel half told. What else have we done ? We have seized upon it 
as a pretext for other, and if possible, yet deeper enormities. We have publish, 
ed to the world a falsehood. We have endeavored to conceal the true character 
of our outrage. We have stated that the contest was of their own seeking — not 
ours ; and upon this degrading perversion, we have pursued them with still more 
frightful outrages. We at once called into the field 50,000 soldiers — placed the 
whole naval power of the Government at the disposition of the Executive — en- 
trusted him with ten millions of dollars, and carried on the war thus begun — took 
possession of their towns, bombarded Monterey — carried it almost by storm, 
slaughtering men and women by hundreds and thousands. Still the story is not 
told. The damning dishonor is not yet as dark as the truth. Another Congress 
assembled — we of the Senate composing it in part. We authorized additional 
troops to be raised — we placed additional funds in the hands of the President. 
We hear of an intention to strike outraged Mexico in yet more vital points — we do 
not arrest it. We sufter the expedition to go on. Before the Mexican blood is yet 
dry upon the fields of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterey, and Buena Vista, 
Vera Cruz is boml)arded. Her churches fall under the dreadful aim of our mor- 
tars — the Ijlood of her women and children run in streams through her before 
peaceful and happy streets — her almost every thoroughfiire is obstructed by the 
mangled bodies of her slaughtered citizens, until at last, her valor can hold out 
no longer before the mighty and crushing power of our arms. She surrenders. 
Yet still our vengeance is not glutted. Innocent, unoffending Mexico has yet 
more cities to be laid waste or conquered — more hearts to be wrung — more gal- 
lant blood to be shed — more women and children to be slaughtered — tiinre agony 
in every form to suffer. We have not yet had our fill of blood. We march on 
in our fiendish progress. At Cerro Gordo, Cherubusco, Chapultepec, Molino del 
Rey, our deeds of slaughter are renewed, and go on with yet more fearful vio- 
lence. Mexican blood waters every hill and plain. The cries of Mexican agony 
startle every ear, and still the work goes on. We lay siege to the city of Mex- 
ico itself — bombard its peaceful dwellings — make her streets to run Avith human 
gore, and slaughter again women and children, until resistance becomes unavail- 
ing. We get possession of the Capital, and yet carry on the contest. Sir, can 
our country have done such deeds ? Is she so deeply steeped in crime ? Has 
she no honor left? Are we christian and civilized men, or are we robbers and 
murderers ? I hope she will pardon me the inquiry ; and yet if the war was un- 
just, if it was not provoked, if it was our act, and not the act of Mexico, every hu- 
man heart, animated by a single human feeling, can but answer in the aflirmative. 

But no sir, no sir, it is not so. She is high-minded, just, and honorable. She 
is civilized, not savage. Her citizens are moral and Christian. Those scenes 



are, in the eye of God and man, to be justified, because necessary to our honor, 
and forced upon us in vindication of our violated rights. Mexico is answerable 
for all these sad and sickening results. The war is just, because she commenc- 
ed it. It does exist by her act; and, so help me God, but for that conviction, as 
I reverence truth, and detest falsehood, I would never have voted for the act of 
13th May, 1846. 

So far I have been considering the justice of the war as between the two 
belligerents — the United States and Mexico, as nations. But another and a 
material inquiry presents itself What, independent of the attack upon our 
troops on the Rio Grande, the immediate cause of the war, was its remote cause ? 
Upon this point I agree, I believe, and have ever agreed, with my political 
friends, and, as I think, 'with hundreds and thousands of our political opponents. 
That cause is to be found in tvi^o measures of the President of the United States. 
The first, the mode he pursued under the resolutions of the 1st March, '45, to 
consummate the annexation of Texas to our Union. The second, and the more 
direct and immediate cause, his order to march our troops to the Rio Grande. 
Upon both these points I proceed to give my opinion with the frankness which 
becomes me, and at the same time the decorum which is due to the chief Execu- 
tive otficer of the Government. 

First. The mode he adopted of consummating annexation. The resolution 
of Congress of 1st March presented alternative modes. Under the one, Texas 
was to be admitted without any precedent definition of her boundaries. Under 
the other, there was to be such a definition. Sir, I will not stop to inquire into 
the secret history of that resolution in this body. The treaty which preceded ^t 
had been rejected, because it prescri!)ed no other boundary than that which Texas 
claimed. It was rejected, as appears by the debates in this chamber, because, in 
the judgment of some Senators on the other side, such claim was untrue and in- 
valid — invalid because a large portion of the territory embraced within the as- 
serted limits was clearly a portion of Mexico. The treaty being rejected, the 
resolution of the 1st March, 1845, came to the Senate. That, too, was open to 
the same objection as the treaty. It left the boundary to depend on the claim of 
Texas. It was impossible for those who thought the treaty was obnoxious on thaS 
ground, and on that ground voted against it, to give it their support. 

But they did vote for it, after getting it amended, by the insertion of an al- 
ternative mode. Sir, how happened it that this change of form reconciled them 
to the measure? Could it have been for any other reason than because they 
were satisfied that that alternative would be pursued by the President ? Such al- 
ternative obviated the objection of an unsettled and unjust boundary. It looked 
to negotiation as the remedy lo avoid all difficulty either with Texas or Mexico. 
It looked to annexation, without the hazard of a war, and was designed for the pure 
and patriotic purpose of maintaining the peace and honor ofthe United States. Now, 
sir, I do not allege that this was the ground of their support, and still less that 
they had any assurance from the President upon the subject ; but I do allege 
that I can conceive no other reason for their vote upon the resolution at all in 
keeping with their characters for high intelligence, firmness of purpose, and pat- 
riotism, than that they thought they had an assurance that their mode of annex- 
ation would be pursued. Sir, how did it turn out ? The ink was hardly dry 
with which the resolution was recorded, and the name ofthe President attached 
to it, before, without going through the form even of a moment's subsequent 
deliberation, a messenger was despatched to the Government of Texas, inviting 
her into the Union, under the first ahernative — and under the first alternative she 
came into the Union. 

Now, sir, I charge upon the President, that this hasty and ill-advised step was 
the remote cause of the present war. I charge it upon him, that if he had acted 
prudently, and cautiously, and wisely, he would have proceeded under the other 
alternative, and have saved the dreadful effusion of blood the world has been com- 
pelled to witness. I charge it upon him that the course which he did pursue was 



10 

inconsistent with that uniform policy of his predecessors to avoid, or to seek to 
avoid, by every possible and honorable means, that direst of all national evils, war. 
Sir, it is no defence that Congress authorized the step he did take. They, to 
be sure, authorized it, but did not command it. They left with him, unwisely, 
I think — certainly I would not have done it — the discretion to adopt it. But he 
knew — must have known — that some of the wisest and purest of statesmen pre- 
dieted that it would end in war; and that some of the wisest and purest of the states 
men belonging to his own political party entertained that opinion. He knew that 
the majority of the Senate, his constitutional advisers, were firmly of tiiat opinion. 
He knew they had promptly rejected a treaty upon that very ground, and that 
alone ; and yet, in defiance of all this, he headlong takes the obnoxious step, and 
the war ensues. The responsibility is upon his head, and heavy and overwhelm- 
ing is that responsibility. 

Sir, annexation of itself would not have been war — Mexico had no right to make 
it a cause of war. Texas' independence liad been too long established and un- 
disturbed to have her absolute riglit of sovereignty called in question. Acknowl- 
edged by the principal powers of the world, all had a right to say, that revolution 
had ripened into title, and especially had the United States, the neighbor of the 
new government, that right. Nor do I believe, Mr. President, that Mexico, proud 
and arrogant as she then was, would have dared, on account of the treaty of an- 
nexation, lo make war upon the United States. No, sir, it was the manner, not 
the fact. It was the rashness, and, under the circumstances, in my opinion, the 
litter rashness of the President's course. I repeat, therefore, my settled convic- 
tion, that the President is, on this account, answerable for the war. But, upon 
the second ground to which I have referred, his liability is even yet more mani- 
fest, and without a shadow of justification or excuse. Sir, I need not say that I 
impute no improper motives to the President. He has, no doubt, I hope, acted 
under a mistaken sense of duty. But, in my opinion, sir, the order to march our 
army to the Rio Grande was a flagrant violation of that duty — was ill-advised, 
reckless, and clearly against the spirit of the Constitution. 

Sir, he could not but have known that such a measure was likely to bring on 
hostilities. He could not but have known that such hostilities would be in the 
judgment of the nation, war. The war-making power is exclusively vested in 
Congress, for wise, high, and vital reasons of public policy. No man would be 
mad enough to repose such a dreaded power in the Executive. The security of 
freedom and peace demands, that those who are to pay the expenses of war, should 
alone have the right to declare it. Congress was then in session, why were they 
not consulted ? Was it apprehended that they would not by such a step hazard 
the peace of the nation ? Was it because it was believed that they would resort 
to every possible effort before taking a step so likely to involve us ? Sir, I hope 
not, I am bound, in respect to the President, to believe not. But, sir, the fact re- 
mains. Is there a citizen in the United States of any intelligence who can doubt 
that Congress never would, in the then condition of things, have suffered, if they 
could have prevented it, much less ordered, that march. 

I charge, therefore, upon the President that as far as the United States and him- 
self are concerned, he is the author of the war. He, and he only ; and upon his 
hands rests the blood which has crimsoned its many glorious battle fields. But 
this, sir, is a question between the country and the President. Mexico had no 
right on that account to assail our flag. To her it made no difference under what 
authority of this Government our troops were on the Rio Grande. We had, I 
repeat, and I hope I have shown, a right to send them there, and her attack 
upon them was, as regards her and ourselves, war actually begun by her. 

Sir, our flag has waved in proud glory over every field of conflict. The na- 
tion's heart has beat high with pride and gratitude to the brave spirits who have 
borne it, for their matchless gallantry and skill. Upon the nation's brow no 
blush need to be seen. They were not permitted to avoid the horrid strife. 
Their President, without their knowledge, rashly involved the nation's honor. 



11 

That honor was then illegally assailed. They had no choice but to vindicate it. 
Theirs is all the glory which has been adhieved. The President hereafter, when 
in the retirement of private life, and reviewing the scenes of these bloody con- 
flicts, however it may be now, will take no joy in the remembrance of our tri- 
umphs. The voice of conscience will tell him that all the blood of the battle was 
of his shedding. The tale of its glory, to him, will be lost amidst the agonizing 
cries of the widows and orphans it has made. Sir, I repeat it, I allege no im- 
proper motive to the Executive, but as I believe that I am now addressing you, 
do J believe that upon the President rests the blood and expenses of the war, and 
upon him, therefore, I charge them. 

I have said all, Mr. President, that I proposed to say upon the part of the subject to 
which, so far, I have called the attention of the Senate. It is possible, however, that 
in what I am about to offer to the consideration of the Senate, I sliali incidentally 
refer to it again. I speak next, and in the first place, of the actual conduct of the war 
under the management of the President of the United States. The war was recog- 
nised as existing on the 13th of May, 1843, by the act of Congress of that date. We 
are now in tlie month of January, 1848, and to all appearances, i!ie restoration of peace 
is as far off, and even further, than it seemed to be on the 13th May, 1846 The whole 
power of the nation, so far as he has deemed it advisable to ask to have that power 
devolved upon him, has been placed in the hands of the Executive. Not an occasion, 
although there have been so many and such glorious ones, has presented itself in which 
the American arms have not been triumphant. And yet there is no peace. My opinion 
is, and has been throughout, that the reason is to be referred exclusively to the 
want of vigor with which the war has been prosecuted. We have had an ostentatious 
and asserted vigor, but we have had nothinp: else, as far as the President is concerned. 

I am very far from imputing — because I am incapable of making a charge which I 
do not believe to be true — I am very far from imputing, that this want of actual vigor 
has been intentional on the part of the Executive. So far from it, I believe that he 
has been deluding himself, from time to time, with the idea that peace was to be ob- 
tained without the effusion of blood ; a sad delusion — a delusion, sir, which must here- 
after constitute a great and overwhelming account of responsibility against him. 

I said yesterday, that it was the march of our troops i'rom the Nueces to the Rio 
Grande, that was, in my opinion, the immediate cause of the war. T say to-day what 
I have had occasion to say in other places, over and over again— that I believe that that 
march of iisel', if it had been made with a proper force, would not actually have led 
to such a result. I have no doubt that if, instead of sending the small but gallant 
band — the heroes of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma — to the Rio Grande, he had 
sent from 5 000 to 8,000 men, not a drop of blood would have been shed, and no Mex- 
ican ever have ventured to have trodden the soil on this side of the river in hostile 
attitude. But sir, the war commenced, was recognised, and 50,000 troops, with an 
unlimited amount of treasure, were freely placed at the disposal of the Executive, to- 
gether with an implied promise, such as to give the President the assurance, (if such 
were needed,) that this unlimited amount could, if the expression may be excused, be 
made still more unlimited. And yet what has he done? Instead of calling out twenty 
or thirty, or forty, or fit'iy thousand men, as he was authorized to du by the act of the 
13th of May, 1846, he, and the officer at the head of the War Department, called them 
out by driblets— and announcing to the country from time to time, that they had a 
sufficient force in the field to conquer a peace. What has been the consequence ? 
That which every man of intelligence who speaks as he thinks must acknowledge — 
that great and mighty and extraordinary as have been the triumphs of the American 
arms, they have hardly furnished us anyilnng but the glory attending them. They 
have, to be sure, illustrated the American character for valor and military skill ; but 
they have served no other purpose. And why, Mr. President ? Because each struggle 
has been at such fearful odds, that the gallant officer in command has been unable lo 
follow.it up, or profit by the result. 

Look at the history of the campaign on the Rio Grande. General Taylor, who, with 
a few thousand men, marched to Monterey, and succeeded, after a dread and fearful con- 
flict, in carrying that almost impregnably fortified town, was so far crippled that he 
was unable to hold even the prisoners that he might take. What happened afterwards? 
The plan of the campaign is changed, some new light dawns upon the mind of the 
Executive, and Mexico is to be stricken in a different part. There is a point still more 
vital to be assailed— a point still more certain, if assailed, to lead to the restoration 
of peace, and to the vindication of our outrage! rights- What is done ? Gen. Tay- 
lor is stripped of what was supposed to be the very flower of his commaad. The enemy 



12 . 

approached. Eight or ten millions of the puhlic property were exposed to be losr, 
unless preserved by the gallantry and indomitable valor of the few soldiers left behind 
to guard it. Almost with electric speed it becomes known at the city of Mexico, and 
an army such as she had never before marched into the field, was organized, amount- 
ing to some twenty or twenty-five thousand troops, and led on by their greatest chief. 

Mr. President, much as his previous successes had satisfied every American that 
Taylor, and the officers and men under his command, were competent to accomplish 
almost any triumph that human power could accomplish, was there one who did not 
then tremble for their fate? And the fact that they were not utterly annihilated, may 
be considered almost a military miracle. Disparity offeree was comparatively nothing 
before the energies of the American soldiers ; and in the annals of former military 
triumphs, the proudest of them all will hereafter be regarded as nothing in comparison 
\yith the victories of B;ieria Vista. They are all thrown in the shade by the brilliant 
light of an exploit, whirii. v/hilst it electrified the American heart, astounded the world. 

Let us look now, sir, to the campaign of last year. Gen. Scott was compelled to as- 
sail the city of Vera Cruz with between 12,000 and 14,000 troops, and to carry, at ail 
hazards, a castle supposed to be impregnable. He succeeded in accomplishing it, but 
he has done little or nothing beyond that. Every battle which was fought between 
Vera Cruz and the city of Mexico, was fought with a disparity of numbers actually ap> 
palling. That noble leader was forced to march a distance of 150 or 200 miles, (I 
forget the exact distance,) into the enemy's country, and, for a great portion of the 
way through a dense population, to assail a city containing 1S0,U0[» or 200,000 inhabi- 
tants, surrounded by fortifications, which were supposed to be impregnable, and with- 
out even the means of keeping up his communications with the seaboard, lor the pur- 
pose of getting supplies. These supplies found their way to him, from time to time^ 
hv the gallantry of the escort, who were obliged to fight, foot by foot, almost every mile 
of their progress. And at the end of all his great and extraordinary triumphs, Scott finds 
himself in the city of Mexico with only some 6,000 soldiers. Now, sir, who does not 
believe that, if he had started with an army of 30,000 men, although we might then 
have been deprived of the glory of his many victories, we might have been in posses- 
sion of the city of Mexico, perhaps, without shedding a drop of blood, American os 
Mexican. \V ho can doubt that it is the duty of an Executive, managing a war de- 
clared to exist by a Christian people, to do what the honorable Senator from Missis- 
sippi, (Mr. Davis,) said it wou'd be the effect of this bill to accomplish— not to ensure 
a triumph .on the battle-field, but to avoid a battle by accomplishing success by force 
of numbers — to break down the moral power of the enemy — to conquer a peace by de- 
monstrating to that enemy that resistance is in vain. All at once (I find no fault with 
it, on the contrary. I rejoice at it,) the eyes ofthe Execut ve have been opened. All 
at once it seems to be perceived by him, that the war heretofore has not been vigor- 
ously prosecuted, except on paper. Well, whose fault is it, Mr. President? Who would 
have borne the dread responsibility, it our gallant little army on the Rio Grande had 
been sacrificed ? Who would have had the equally tremendous responsibility, if those 
gallant spirits now in the halls of the Montezumas had been sacrificed ? The nations 
ofthe world would have said, with one accord, the Executive of tlie United States. 
XJpon him the responsibility for the useless and cruel expenditure of blood and of treasure 
would have rested. Sir, I make bold to say, in speaking in the presence of those who know 
infinitely more upon such subjects than 1 do, that if the President had called out the 
50,000 volunteers after hearing of the battles of Palo Alto and Resnca de la Palma, 
there never would have been another blow struck in Mexico; and peace would long 
sirice have been restored. The Mexicans, to be sure, have a high and indomitable 
spirit, (I speak particularly of that portion of them who have in their veins the true 
Castilian blood,) but they know there may be a point at which resistance ceases to 
be a virtue, and they would have seen that that was their condition when they saw a 
deternrination on the part ofthe I5nited States to exert their whole power in the ac- 
complishment ofthe purpose for which war had been declared. 

Who can doubt that if the Executive of the United States had announced that the- 
purpose ofthe war was merely to procure indemnitv for wrongs, and to vindicate out- 
raged character, and to maintain the honor of our flag, and had placed fifty thousand 
troops in Mexico, as he might have done, it would have led to a cessation of hostili- 
ties. Sir, I think we have no peace, because the President of the United States has 
not exerted the power which Congress has placed in his hands, and which was in- 
tended to be exerted. I think, and I therefore charge upon him, that the American 
tlood which has been so freely poured out, has been thus freely poured out because of 
his error. I think, and I therefore charge upon him, that the millions of money which 
have been spent, and have yet to be spent, have been and are to be spent because of 
his error. This is all that I propose to say, Mr. President, on the manner in which 
this war has been conducted. 



13 

And this leads me to consider very briefly what should be, in my judgment, the mode 
•of its further prosecution. There are only three modes to be resorted to. The first 
is, to withdraw the troops altogether — if not to the Nueces, to this side of the Rio 
Grande. The second, to withdraw them to what is termed a defensive line ; and, the 
third, to carry on the war in the heart of the Mexican territory, until Mexico agree to 
terms of peace. I prefer the last. 

Mr. President, in saying that I prefer the last, I do not wish to be misunderstood. 
I prefer the last if the end to he obtained is not one which, in my judgment, would 
tarnish the American name. I prefer the last, if the object to be accomplished is 
merely the vindication of our violated honor, and indemnity for our heretofore violated 
rights. But if the purpose of this war, with the President of the United States, is to an- 
nihilate the nationality of Mexico, if it is the foicible dismemberment of herterritory, 
then I say, on my responsibility as a Senator and a man, I wotsld not give him a dollar. 

Sir, we live at a lime when character i^ of immense value with nations, as we kn6w 
it to be with individuals ; and if there be any one thing which more than another 
stains national character, it is using national power to inflict national injustice. And if 
•there be any national crime, more crying and enormous, in the opinion of all Christendom, 
than any other, it is the forcible dismemberment of the territory of a \;eaker nation. 

When I say, Mr. President, that lam for fighting the war out, I mean that I am for 
fighting it out in order to accomplish the purpose which we seek to have accom- 
plished: that is, to have American rights recognised, and American honor vindicated; 
so as to furnish full and complete security against any subsequent violation. 

The two first points to which I have referred, the proposition for withdrawing the 
troops, and that for taking a defensive line, 1 have already said, I cannot concur in. 
To withdraw the troops altogether, in my judgment, would be national dishonor, and 
I cannot, therefore, entertain the idea for a moment. To take a defensive line, would 
not, in my judgment, lead to peace, but would, on the contrary, be perpetual war; 
and so far as expense is to be mentioned in any comparison with the other calamities 
of war, it would be attended with infinitely greater expense than that of fighting it 
out. Now, sir, the objection to carrying the war on, is the expenditure of money with, 
which it will be necessarily attended, and the consequent derangement of the whole 
financial condition of the country. My impression is, from some examination which 
I have given the subject, and with an anxious desire to arrive at a satisfactory result, 
that the war may be carried on in Mexico, without the expenditure of a single 
American dollar, and of course without aft'ecting the pecuniary condition of the 
American people, or the pecuniary condition of the Government itself. 

The resources of the Mexican Government, Mr. President, even under all the disad- 
vantageous circumstances under which that government has existed, are infinitely 
greater, it seems to me, than is generally supposed. The fact is, that until a compari- 
lively recent period, indeed until a short time before the commencemeni of the war 
with ourselves, the expenditures of their government have been about ;|]>21, 000,000 an- 
nually. And it has been appropriated to these purposes. They have had an army of 
30,000 men always on pay, costing the Government about 810,000.000. They have 
had a civil list bill of about $6,000,000, and interest to be paid on the public debt to 
the amount of $5,000,000, making $21,000,000. Their army has been punctually paid, 
their civil list punctually met, and the interest on the public debt, until, as I have said, 
a comparatively recent period, has been met with equal punctuality. From what re- 
sources, sir ? The products of their mines, when they are in full opera tipn ; and for 
a series of years, when in such lull operation, they have produced $25,000,000 per 
year ; they charge what is termed a transit duty on all the bullion that is drawn from, 
the mines until it reaches the port of exportation. This transit duty is paid in the 
form of a permit, ^ranted on the part of the government, to convey the bullion from 
town to town, the permit being renewed at each terminus, until it reaches the place of 
exportation, and when it gels there, it is subject to an export duty of one per cent. 
The average amount of these transport duties, until the bullion reaches the place of 
exportation ; is about two and a half or three per cent. The gross amount of bullioa 
drawn from the mines, as I have said, is about $25,000,000. The Senate will easily 
perceive then, the amount derived from this source, with an average of two and a half 
or three per cent, as transit duty, and with a specific export duty of one per cent, upon 
the value of every pound of bullion exported. The next source of revenue aud the 
amount that it raises, it is almost impossible to calculate ; or rather to speak more cor- 
rectly, the amount it would raise if peace was restored to Mexico, if that country was 
restored to quiet, and business operations were permitted to go on in their ordinary 
course. This source is the stamp tax. They charge what is termed a stamp 
tax on every description of contract transferring every description of property, of or 
• exceeding the value of five hundred dollars. That is to say, every contract between 



14 

man and man relative to property worth five hundred dollars, is to be written upon 
stamp paper, for which the parties pay to the stamp officers, six dollars. But accord- 
ing to their laws, coniracis of this description are left in the hands of a Not-ary, anA 
are recorded among the official transactions of the Notary, making it necessary for the 
parties to the contract, if ihey desire to have in their possession evidence of the con- 
tract, to obtain official copies ; and the result is, that each one of the parties almost 
invariably takes a copy of the contract. 'I he copy is also written on stamped paper, 
and for the copies there is paid six dollars each. 

There is another source, and that is a duty on the sale of everything that is sold. 
Nothing passes from hand to hand by way of sale that does not pay a specific duty, 
regulated by the amount of the value of the articles so passing. Now, I will not es- 
timate the amount thus derived ; it is sufficient for my pi.rpose to state the fact as I 
understand the fact to be, that the amount of revenue received from these sources has 
been abundantly sufficient to enable the Government of Mexico to meet punctually its 
disbursements to the amount of $21,000,000. This amount would support any army 
which we might put into the field; and this we would have a perfect right to appro- 
priate. Not to seize and confiscate individual property, which is abhorrent to every 
sense of justice, which would be an act of barbarism— a dishonor to the age in which 
we live, and a stain upon our national character — but to appropriate the public revenue 
of the country, so as to enfeeble the power of their government, to reduce the military 
to the same standard as private citizens, and prove, by the fact that we are thoroughly 
able to enforce it, that the restoration of peace depends on their submission. Now, I 
believe as confidently as I can anything of which we have not certain knowledge, that 
by pursuing a course of this description, for the purpose of enforcing a termination of 
this war, we shall not only obtain money as much as is necessary for the support of 
our army, but no portion of it will come from the people of the United States. 

I know, sir, the objection that may be raised as to the consequence that may result 
from taking possession of the whole country. 1 think I can see almost as clearly as 
does the honorable Senator from South Carolin?, (Mr. Calh;un,) the result of incor- 
porating the whole of Mexico into this Union ; and, if I believed that the object was 
the incorporation of the whole of Mexico into the Union by the further prosecution of 
the war, much as I should hang my head in mortification and shame for the honor 
of my country, I would willingly submit to the withdrawal of the troops, rather than 
prosecute the war an hour longer. But I do not believe that such is to be the result. 
I do not believe that the people of the United Slates would suffer an Executive offi- 
cer to perpetrate such a wrong, if the Executive even had it in contemplation. I do 
not believe that they would ever themselves assist an Executive to accomplish such 
an object. I would have much less confidence in them than I have, if I thcught it 
possible that the mere lust of rapine, the mere lust of territory, would lead them to 
dishonor the American name by blottingfrom existence a neighboring and feebler nation. 

I am for prosecuting the war, sir, because I believe the consequence will be^ to 
bring Mexico the earlier to her senses, and to prompt her cheerfully to accept terms of 
peace. And thk brings me to say a word or two on what should be, in my opinion, 
the terms of such a peace. 

Now, sir, I speak for myself, though I have no doubt that I speak the sense of most 
of the friends around me. My honorable friend from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) 
the other day, in the speech which he did us and the country the honor to deliver, said 
he believed the people of the United States were irrevocably determined on taking in- 
demnity for the wrungs which we have suffered from Mexico, in territory. I hope he 
is mistaken. I believe he is mistaken. I believe the people of the United Slates 
would be to-morrow contented by a treaty which would make the Rio Grande the 
boundary. I believe they would be contented with such a treaty, for the purpose 
of terminating the war, rather than that Mexico should be compelled by the force of 
our arms to dismember herself. Now, in expressing this hope and belief, and in ex- 
pressing the opinion that the war might be honorably terminated by taking the Rio 
Grande as the boundary, I wish it not to be supposed that I am opposed to the ac- 
quisition of additional territory. I am against the acquisition of territory by force. I 
am not opposed to the acquisition of territory of itself, but for one consideration which 
weighs in my judgment, and which has had heretofore and still has a controlling ope- 
ration. Mr. President, I fear, I greatly fear, the conflict to which such an acquisition 
would lead. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Hale) told the Sen- 
ate the other day that the true origin of this war lay in the settled purpose on the 
part of the South to perpetuate and extend slavery. I am not alluding to this now 
with any design to try conclusions with the honorable Senator on the question of sla- 
very. Sir, he will pardon m|ffor telling him that that is a subject which no Southern 
maa oa this floor, when he can avoid it, desires to discuss. He will permit me to tell 



15 

him, (acd I do it with all good feeling, and with all the respect in which I hold him as 
a Senator of the United States,) that it has been owing to the exciting discussions on 
this subject in the North, that slavery now exists in majjy of the Southern Stales. He 
wiil permit me to lell him, that I have no doubt, not the least, that it has been the 
course, and that of those whose sentiments he speaks, on this subject, which hasd one- 
more than anything else towards its perpetuation. 

The greatest practical advocates of slavery, sir, have been the Senator himself and 
his particular constituents. Sir, I have my opinion on this subject as deeply instilled 
as can have the Senator from New Hampshire. 'I hey were almost born with me; 
they have been confirmed by the experience ol every day of my life. They have been 
strengthened by all subsequent reflection. I do not choose to express them on this 
floor unless the topic is pressed home. But whilst I have fixed and unalterable con- 
victions as to the mere institution of slavery itself as a political or civil institution, I 
have another conviction as deeply and irrevocably fixed, and that is a conviction that the 
Southern States owe it to ihems^elves, one and all of thrm, to stand on their owa 
rights, to vindicate their own equality, and exclusively at their own time, and with- 
out the interference of others, to meddle in their own way, with this peculiar institu- 
tion. Notwithstanding this, Mr. President, I cannot be blind to all the indications of 
the times. I cannot but say, that the opinions entertained in the North, however er- 
roneous I may ihink they are, are still honestly entertained. I cannot but say, that 
the Senator from New Hampshire would be false to the implied promise which lie has 
given to the State which sent him here, if he were not to make it a condition, in the 
acquisition of any additional territory, that slavery sheuld be forever excluded from it. 
I cannot but perceive that that is a popular feeling, which is sweeping like a whirl- 
wind at the North ; but there is an equally determined and steady feelingat the Souths 
If these feelings be further excited, there can be but one result ; that is deadly con- 
flict, or amicable separation. And when I look at either, Mr. President, my heart 
sickens at the reflection. Sons of a common ancestry, bound together by common 
ties, glorying in a common renown, looking in common to a still more glorious fuiure, 
I cannot but leei my heart sink within me, even at the possibility of such a result. 
And it is because 1 believe it will follow, if the state of things to which I have allud- 
ed shall be brought into existence, and not because I am opposed merely to the acqui- 
sition of territory, that 1 gave my cordial support to the resolution oflTered upon that 
subject by the distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. Eerrien,) at the last session. 

Sir, I am not to be driven into a difl'erent course by being told that it would leave 
us a pecuniary loss. With me, Mr. President, loss of money is nothing to loss of 
character. With me the boundless wealth of the world would be as nothing, compared 
with what I should esteem the incalculable loss attending the destruction of our na- 
tional character. But, sir, it is not true, that a peace accomplished on the terms tO' 
which I have referred, would leave us without indemnity. Sir, we have indemnity 
inthe history of this war. It is to be found in the many glorious battle-fields which 
it has presented to an astonished world. It is to be found in the delight which elec- 
trified every American heart at the result of every conflict. It is to be found in the 
security wliich it furnishes against the disturbers of our peace hereafter. A few hun- 
dreds of millions, even if it should go to hundreds, that may be expended, will be for- 
gotten even while spoken of— while the glory and renown which it has heaped upon 
the American character, will be remembered as long as time itself shall endure. I 
am not, therefore, to be told that peace on such terms would leave us losers, in the 
true, high, and moral sense ot the term. 

A word on another subject, and I cease to trouble the Senate. I have already indi- 
cated, Mr. President, my preference of a regular over a volunteer lorce. Now, sir, 
that preference is founded, (and I have but a word or two, in way of reason, to assign 
for it,) on the opinion which information in my possession has enabled me to form, 
that the expense of a regular force is much less, and their efficiency infinitely greater j, 
above all, that the sacrifice of human life is less. Mr. Secretary Poinsett, in his letter 
of the 21st March, 1838, to the Honorable Mr. Speaker Polk, now President, speaking 
of the comparative expense of the two descriptions offerees, says that — 

" The difl'erence of expense between the employment of this description of troops, (meaning vol- 
unteers and militia,) and regulars, is at least as four to one, independently of the wastage attending 
their ignorance of every administrative branch of the service, the enormous expense of marching 
them to and from distant points, for short periods of service, and the great increase that will be 
made to the Pension List, under the provisions of the act of the 19th March, 1836." 

Now, sir, the Senate will find how inefficient this description'Of force is — I mean as 
compared with regular forces— by turning to Document 297, of the 2d Session, 25th 
Congress. They will there find, that volunteers and militia were called out in the 
years '32, '36, '37, and '3S,to serve ia the Florida War, ia the BlaCkiJliiwfe War, in the 



16 

War against the Cherokees, and in the State of New York, at the time of the Border 
difficulties, to ihe number of 55,324. They will find, I am Katisfied, that, aside from 
the additional expense attending the employment of these forces, and for the purpose 
now in view, (the superior efficiency of the regulars,) that the mortality among volunteers 
and militia, compared with regulars, is as ten to one. Sir, to what is this owing ? 
It is owing principally to the fact that the otl^icers are unable to subject them to the 
same state of discipline, and lo prevent the exposure which leads to disease. 

From the statements to be found among the papers from the War Department, it 
appears that the number of men enlisted for the line of the regular army, (the old es- 
tablishment,) for the first five months of J 847, and from January 1st to January 1st, 
was 4,605, the number offering to be enlisted during the same period, and rejected by 
the recruiting officers, because of physical infirmity, was 8,475 — more than twice the 
amount actually received. Now, I do not mean to underrate the volunteers. God 
forbid that I should ! but I make bold to say, that at least one-half of those who were 
rejected as unfit for the regular service may be found in the ranks of the volunteers. 
The chances of mortality in that corps are of course very much increased. 

I have said, i\ir. President, all I intend to say upon this point; and I ask the atten- 
tion of the Senate only a moment or two longer, while I add a word or two by way 
of conclusion. Sir, I have heard it said by some, that this war should be prosecuted 
because its tendency was to ameliorate the condition of Mexico. I have heard it said 
that we were constituted missionaries by Heaven, even by fire, and by sword, and by 
slaughter, to carry the light of civilization into that benighted land. I have heard that 
it has been stated, even in the pulpit, that we have been selected by Divine Providence 
to purify a dark and false religion — to break down their old, ancient, and degraded su- 
perstitions — to bring them into the pale of the true faith, and to substitute for it the holier 
and purer light of the Protestant religion. I have heard it stated, that the war is to be 
prosecuted lo enlarge the " area of freedom."' I hold to no such doctrines. No, sir. 

We need not, for the sake of enlarging the area of freedom, become propagandists. 
No physical force is on our part called for to break the bonds which bind other people 
in subjection. There is a silent, but potent moral power protrressing through the 
world, rapidly tending to that consummation. Ii has its origin in the lesson which 
our example is teaching. Here is seen perfect personal and political freedom, combin- 
ed with unexampled national happiness, prosperity, and power. Here is seen that 
individual equality which nature stamps upon the heart as a right, protected and enjoy- 
ed amongst ourselves to an extent never before known, and shielded by a national arm 
that the nations of the world would in vain attempt to strike down. 

Yes, sir, our institutions are telling their own story by the blessings they impart to 
us, and indoctrinating the people every where with the principles of freedom upoa 
which they are founded. Ancient prejudices are yielding to their mighty influence. 
Heretofore revered, and apparently permanent systems of government, are falling be- 
neath it. Our glorious mother, free as she has ever comparatively been, is getting to 
be freer. It has blotted out the corruptions of her political franchise. It has brokea 
her religious intolerance. It has greatly elevated the individual character of her sub- 
jects. It has immeasurably weakened the power of her nobles, and by weakening in 
one sense has vastly strengthened the authority of her crown, by forcing it to rest for 
all its power and glory upon the hearts of its people. To Ireland too— impulsive Ire- 
land — the land of genius, of eloquence, and of valor, it is rapidly carrying the bles- 
sings of a restored freedom and happiness. In France, all of political liberty which be- 
longs to her, is to be traced to it ; and even now, it is to be seen cheering, animating, and 
guiding the classic land of Italy, making the very streets of Rome itself to ring with 
shouts of joy and gratitude for its presence. Sir, such a spirit suffers no inactivity, 
and needs no incentive. It admits of neither enlargement nor restraint. Upon its own 
elastic and never-tiring wing, it is now soaring over the civilized world, every where 
leaving its magic and abiding charm. I say, then, try not, seek not to aid it. Bring 
no physical force to succor it. Such an adjunct would serve only to corrupt and par- 
alyze its efforts. Leave it to itself, and, sooner or later, man will be free. Sir, as to 
this war and its influence upon ourselves, there is much to rejoice at and be proud of. 
The struggle of '76 demonstrated the deeply-seated love of freedom in our sires, and 
their stern and indomitable purpose to enjoy it or die. The war of 1812, demonstra- 
ted the capacity of our institutions to bear such a trial, and nobly was the test borne 
and the capacity illustrated. The present war has again demonstrated, not only that 
such mere capacity continues, but that no nation exists endowed with greater m'ilitary 
power. Mr. President, the result cannot but redound to our future peace and happi- 
ness. It furnishes ample indemnity for all the wrongs and obloquy we have hereto- 
fore suffered, and ample, ample security against their recurrence. Such a result has 
won for us national glory, and that is national power, stronger than thousands of fortress- 
es, and as perpetual as, I hope in God, will be our nation's love of virtue and of freedom. 

H4@ 



^^" 




: %.*" ymM'. X/ ' 



>«>•. 












,^^-^ 










':<mf^\^ 



p^ ' 



^■^""''- X/ -»: %.^^ 
















^^ 







t^ A^ *:(^V/>:^ -^^^ c'^'^ 



-^^^^^ 






o */7vr* A 





























,<^^ ,.^". 






.. .^4' o^"^*-..'-' 














-y" "*%s 



' .^'\ 



!•* *b 






'b^" 



^^-^^^ 







-^Ao^ 



^<}5°^ 







xPvl, 




* ^^^ 



^^^^ 




c°\-'j^L'>^ ./\v:^-X .c°.-^'^->- > 




'^o^ 
f^^""^ 








'^0^ 








^oK 






^^-^^^ 



-^^ . 



















'.'VL% > 







v^ ... 



<!>. ''•'' <•» 






V^^ 



0° " 
















"^o^ 







% • 






0^ ... 




-^o. 



: -^^^^ 



^-^c,^' 



.^^ ..-•. ^^. 







^o V^ '' 



ii"^. 






-^^0^ 



?► '^. 



.0 



• v'-. <e* 



^oV^ 













'v\/ - 






'J^OV*' ^Jl^l^^^. '^^r^' oV^^^P^'- 'Jt-v'^ 



^0 



^"'W. 



'^^ * 




. »jj;5;J5%.fc*^ o ,.^^ 




/ <u^ 



'^o^ 
^^°. 



0' 'V *.T.»\V*" 

. » • • * "'^^ *> . 1 • 




■o,. 'TT.-' iO 



"bV" 



,*....,. 



